ORDRE : 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.5.2016, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih, in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015, whereby and where under application preferred by the petitioner under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. 3. An FIR was instituted, in which it was alleged that during patrolling duty, on seeing the police party, person standing near the temple has started to flee away, who was subsequently apprehended and disclosed his name as Santosh Kumar Mandal @ Santosh Mandal. On search being conducted from his possession, several incriminating articles were recovered and he had also admitted that money was withdrawn from ATM Card fraudulently by introducing himself as a bank officer. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015 was instituted. The petitioner was taken into custody on 29.4.2015. After charge sheet was submitted on 25.6.2015 and after taking cognizance charges were framed against the petitioner on 23.9.2015. The petitioner had preferred an appeal under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., which however was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih on 18.5.2016, which is the order impugned in this application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.5.2016 does not justify rejection of an application under section 437(6) of Cr. P.C. since no appropriate reasonings have been mentioned in the said order. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a considerable length of time and by virtue of vague reasonings indefeasible right accrued to him under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. has been frustrated. 6. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to a judgment passed in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah & Others Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011. 7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that specific reasonings have been given by the learned trial court with respect to involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence and that he was arrested at the spot and therefore his application under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected. 7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that specific reasonings have been given by the learned trial court with respect to involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence and that he was arrested at the spot and therefore his application under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected. It has been submitted that several witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and steps are being taken by the learned trial court to examine rest of the prosecution witnesses so that the trial be concluded at the earliest. 8. It appears that an application under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih on the ground that prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected by this Court as also the involvement of the petitioner found in commission of the offence and considering the nature as well as gravity of the offence. It is an admitted fact that right of the petitioner was to be considered for releasing him on bail after expiry of 60 days. It is to be seen as to whether the petitioner deserves to be given the benefit accruing to him under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. or as to whether the refusal of such application by the learned trial court was on justifiable and cogent reasons. Such divergent view was in existence with respect to the question as to whether the provision of section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature or not. Such question was referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011. 9. Before deliberating on the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to have a glance at Section 437(6) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:- 437 (6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non- bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. 10. Sub Section 6 of Section 437 virtually consists of two parts. 10. Sub Section 6 of Section 437 virtually consists of two parts. If first part is read in isolation, it would mean that an accused accrues an indefeasible and incorrigible right for being released on bail if in a case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of a non bailable offence is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence of the accused, such person if he is in custody during whole of the said period shall be released on bail. However, a cog in the wheel has been put in the said provision to the effect that such right cannot be by way of a mandatory right as the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing may otherwise direct. Adverting to the judgment passed in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011 while considering the various parameters for grant of bail or for that matter refusal of bail under section 437(6) of CrP.C., it was held that the provisions are not mandatory in nature. Various factors, which must weigh in the mind of the Magistrate have been enumerated in the judgment under reference and the same reads as under:- “Q-3 The Magistrate has option/discretion to refuse bail by assigning reasons there for. The parameters, factors, circumstances and grounds to be considered by Magistrate vis-à-vis such application preferred by the accused under Section 437(6) of the Code may be: (1)Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused? (2) Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner? (3) whether there are any chances of abscondence of the accused on being bailed out? Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period? If the answer to any one of the above referred fact situations or similar fact situations is in affirmative than that would work as a fetter on the right that accrues to the accused under first part of sub section (6) of Section 437 of the Code”. 11. If the answer to any one of the above referred fact situations or similar fact situations is in affirmative than that would work as a fetter on the right that accrues to the accused under first part of sub section (6) of Section 437 of the Code”. 11. One of the parameters, which are also to be considered, are whether there are chances of the accused tampering with the evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner. In the backdrop of the judicial pronouncement, as stated above, this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is in consonance or is in conformity with the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. 12. As has been stated above, refusal to grant benefit of bail under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. seems to be on the ground of gravity of the offence, the arrest at the spot of the petitioner and the fact that his bail was rejected by this Court on merits. Such vague grounds cannot be a basis for rejection of an application under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. In fact in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah (supra), a note of caution has been added to the effect that the reasons for rejection of the application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. need to be more weighty than the routine grounds of rejection. The impugned order does not justify the rejection by strengthening it with any plausible grounds which is in existence rather by one stroke of pain, the said application has been rejected by considering the gravity of the offence and no discussion has been made with respect to the grounds, which would be germane for the purpose of rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.. Merely making a note that the offence is grave is basically to frustrate the legislative intent as is envisaged in Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. No doubt, it is true that the accused does not gain an indefeasible right for being released on bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. but at the same time learned Magistrate cannot refuse such right without giving appropriate reasons for such refusal. Learned S.D.J.M, Giridih having not elaborated or justified the reasons given for refusing to release the petitioner on bail under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. has therefore committed an illegality. Learned S.D.J.M, Giridih having not elaborated or justified the reasons given for refusing to release the petitioner on bail under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. has therefore committed an illegality. Such facts situation, therefore, would definitely entitle the petitioner to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.5.2016, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih, in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015, whereby and where under application preferred by the petitioner under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected, is hereby quashed and set aside. Learned trial court is further directed to release the petitioner on bail if not already released subject to such conditions it may impose. 14. This application stands allowed.